• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia, China embrace uneasily, aim for 'desirable world order'

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
61,961
Reaction score
19,061
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From NBC News

Russia, China embrace uneasily, aim for 'desirable world order'

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia — Donning a blue apron, Russian President Vladimir Putin poured batter into a pan and tossed it.

He was cooking with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, and the pair were making a traditional Russian pancake called a blini.

The culinary showmanship reflected a larger trend: Russia and China are developing a closer, albeit uneasy friendship.

Before last week's blini-making, the two leaders had just discussed military and economic cooperation on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum, an annual event held in this far-eastern Russian city.

"The president and I agree that since the beginning of this year, Russian-Chinese relations have been showing dynamic growth," Xi said. He announced that ties with his "close friend" Putin had "entered a new era of rapid development and are reaching a higher level."

COMMENT:-

So much for "keeping America's enemies apart".
 
From NBC News

Russia, China embrace uneasily, aim for 'desirable world order'

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia — Donning a blue apron, Russian President Vladimir Putin poured batter into a pan and tossed it.

He was cooking with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, and the pair were making a traditional Russian pancake called a blini.

The culinary showmanship reflected a larger trend: Russia and China are developing a closer, albeit uneasy friendship.

Before last week's blini-making, the two leaders had just discussed military and economic cooperation on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum, an annual event held in this far-eastern Russian city.

"The president and I agree that since the beginning of this year, Russian-Chinese relations have been showing dynamic growth," Xi said. He announced that ties with his "close friend" Putin had "entered a new era of rapid development and are reaching a higher level."

COMMENT:-

So much for "keeping America's enemies apart".

Has the DWO replaced the NWO?
 
Has the DWO replaced the NWO?

When both China and Russia saw individual benefits from keeping on America's good side, the situation was such that they tended not to be on the same side.

When both China and Russia see no individual benefits from keeping on America's good side, the situation is such that they ...

Who knew that international diplomacy could be so complicated?
 
When both China and Russia saw individual benefits from keeping on America's good side, the situation was such that they tended not to be on the same side.

When both China and Russia see no individual benefits from keeping on America's good side, the situation is such that they ...

Who knew that international diplomacy could be so complicated?

My post was meant tongue in cheek. ;)
 
What we are seeing is the rejection of the supposed universality of the NWO.

This is a killer blow to globalism and the US Empire. Because now other states see that there is an alternative to the vassalism which was a requirement of the NWO, they will be emboldened to themselves reject or push back on universalism.

This means the US empire will either retreat or be forced to enforce itself on recalcitrant states. Either way, the end is nigh for the domination of the NWO.
 
What we are seeing is the rejection of the supposed universality of the NWO.

This is a killer blow to globalism and the US Empire. Because now other states see that there is an alternative to the vassalism which was a requirement of the NWO, they will be emboldened to themselves reject or push back on universalism.

This means the US empire will either retreat or be forced to enforce itself on recalcitrant states. Either way, the end is nigh for the domination of the NWO.

Well then those other countries had just better stop it because it is NOT in America's "national security interest" to have other countries NOT doing what the government of the United States of America and because it is NOT in America's "national security interest" to have the economies of other countries NOT being controlled by American corporations and because it is NOT in America's "national security interest" to have other countries having industries with which to produce the materials to defend themselves that are NOT directly owned by American corporations.

If those other countries keep on threatening America's "national security interests" then they jushavta be subjected to CRUSHING sanctions until they are destroyed in order to promote freedom and democracy in the world.
 
Well then those other countries had just better stop it because it is NOT in America's "national security interest" to have other countries NOT doing what the government of the United States of America and because it is NOT in America's "national security interest" to have the economies of other countries NOT being controlled by American corporations and because it is NOT in America's "national security interest" to have other countries having industries with which to produce the materials to defend themselves that are NOT directly owned by American corporations.

If those other countries keep on threatening America's "national security interests" then they jushavta be subjected to CRUSHING sanctions until they are destroyed in order to promote freedom and democracy in the world.

:lol:

I like your humour.

It's funny that the US now uses sanctions as a coercive tool like confetti. This is a de facto recognition that the US can no longer use military power to coerce. Sanctions are an admission of weakness, although the US is still mentally unable to comprehend its new role as the first among equals, as opposed to the global hegemon. So it's still bankrupting itself with a global military empire which reaps ever declining returns.
 
~..........................So much for "keeping America's enemies apart".
I wouldn't worry (if that's what you're doing).

On the Chinese list of despicable gwailou (laowei), Russians take a place probably even above all others.

Holding a joint manoeuvre is merely a populist step right now, beyond that it means nothing. History is not favourable to any love affair and by that I mean the history of both as much as the history of past relationships.

And where China has never had much reason for trusting any outsiders, it's going to make an exception for Russia least of all.

That won't preclude pursuit of common interests but won't go as far as any revival of Hitler-Stalin pacts either.

China knows far better than we do (and far better than we actually should know) never to trust the Kremlin.
 
:lol:

I like your humour.

It's funny that the US now uses sanctions as a coercive tool like confetti. This is a de facto recognition that the US can no longer use military power to coerce. Sanctions are an admission of weakness, although the US is still mentally unable to comprehend its new role as the first among equals, as opposed to the global hegemon. So it's still bankrupting itself with a global military empire which reaps ever declining returns.

The interesting thing about trade is that the following sometimes happens:

  • BOB - "Jim, I'm going to raise my prices for doodlesnappers."
  • JIM - "Bob, that will make it uneconomical for me to buy doodlesnappers from you."
  • BOB - "That's too bad. You'll either buy doodlesnappers from me or go broke."
  • CHARLIE (and SUE [and BORIS {and ME LING <and SVEN>}]) - "Hey, Jim, I've got a really neat line of doodlesnappers. Would you like to buy some."
  • JIM - "Sure thing."
  • JIM - "Hey Bob, you can take your doodlesnappers and stick them where the sun don't shine."
  • BOB - "But if you don't buy my doodlesnappers I'll go broke."
  • JIM - "That's too bad."
  • BOB - "If I go broke I can't by your wtaszittihingees."
  • JIM - "Oops."
  • CHARLIE (and SUE [and BORIS {and ME LING <and SVEN>}]) - "Hey, Jim, we need some wtaszittihingees."
  • JIM - "Oh GOODIE!".
  • JIM - "Tough luck BOB."
  • CHARLIE (and SUE [and BORIS {and ME LING <and SVEN>}]) - "No it isn't, I think that it's pretty neat."
 
I wouldn't worry (if that's what you're doing).

On the Chinese list of despicable gwailou (laowei), Russians take a place probably even above all others.

Holding a joint manoeuvre is merely a populist step right now, beyond that it means nothing. History is not favourable to any love affair and by that I mean the history of both as much as the history of past relationships.

And where China has never had much reason for trusting any outsiders, it's going to make an exception for Russia least of all.

That won't preclude pursuit of common interests but won't go as far as any revival of Hitler-Stalin pacts either.

China knows far better than we do (and far better than we actually should know) never to trust the Kremlin.

Since China has no history of wanting to establish any "world empire" and there is an underlying strain of "everyone else in the world is lower than the lowest Chinese - so low in fact that they aren't worth worrying about as long as they leave The Celestial Kingdom alone" to the Chinese temperament, concern about "China Conquering the World" is something that (statistically) rates roughly on a par with concern about "The Bogyman Under the Bed".

While the Chinese government may not TRUST the Russians, it does appear that the Chinese government has a much better UNDERSTANDING of the Russians than the US government does.

While there might not be any "Hitler/Stalin pacts" (after all, neither Hitler nor Stalin actually intended to honour the agreement), that does NOT preclude Russia and China entering into a "mutual defence against third party attacks" treaty (which is what the "Hitler/Stalin pact" was publicly stated to be [and which is what the "NATO pact" is also publicly stated to be].

As far as "common interests" are concerned, a more nuanced way of stating that is "If it is in OUR interests that YOU __[fill in the blank]__ so will will support you in it, but if it is not, we won't.".
 
Since China has no history of wanting to establish any "world empire" and there is an underlying strain of "everyone else in the world is lower than the lowest Chinese - so low in fact that they aren't worth worrying about as long as they leave The Celestial Kingdom alone" to the Chinese temperament, concern about "China Conquering the World" is something that (statistically) rates roughly on a par with concern about "The Bogyman Under the Bed".

While the Chinese government may not TRUST the Russians, it does appear that the Chinese government has a much better UNDERSTANDING of the Russians than the US government does.

While there might not be any "Hitler/Stalin pacts" (after all, neither Hitler nor Stalin actually intended to honour the agreement), that does NOT preclude Russia and China entering into a "mutual defence against third party attacks" treaty (which is what the "Hitler/Stalin pact" was publicly stated to be [and which is what the "NATO pact" is also publicly stated to be].

As far as "common interests" are concerned, a more nuanced way of stating that is "If it is in OUR interests that YOU __[fill in the blank]__ so will will support you in it, but if it is not, we won't.".
Agreed on all counts.

I'm not altogether sure about how little the US government understands Russia (after all, it consists of more than just the Prez.) but I agree that China has the edge when it comes to that understanding.

Alone on having had far more and far longer experience with Russia.

While they both warred upon each other in the 1600s, subsequent peace treaties were pretty much along the lines of unequal treaties that China had to submit to with Russia as much as with everyone else.

Scratch a Chinese and at the end of the day we're all running dogs.

Nevertheless useful, case by case.
 
Back
Top Bottom